Charlie Kirk

[partying.hard]

I have been aware of Charlie Kirk since he was 19 or 20. He was a vile and reprehensible person. I despised the man.
 

But I am disgusted with any political violence. I think it is reprehensible.

But Charlie often said that murder is a necessary evil in protection of the second amendment. I wonder if he would have been okay with his murder?

If Charlie Kirk had been in a second grader, sitting in his classroom when shot, the story barely would’ve made news outside their local area. And the subject would’ve been dropped within 48 hours.

[Pozzible]

On 9/19/2025 at 11:50 AM, NWUSHorny said:

I have some longstanding opinions on the "Christianity" practiced at that particular church, from when I lived just down the street from their former location on Hillcrest and Arapaho.

Lived and worked in Plano for over 20 years. We had our yearly convocation there, so I’ve been in the (impressive) facility for many, many hours. Was never there for a church service, but it always seemed mega creepy. 

[757pozzybear]

America has operated on political violence since 1776, though. So I dunno how anyone in power in good faith can condemn political violence, given how the US operates from deposing leadership of countries in South America to the violence undertaken against migrants.

[hntnhole]

17 hours ago, partying.hard said:

But Charlie often said that murder is a necessary evil

Really !!!  I thought he was a committed Christian ..... apparently not!

[NWUSHorny]

20 hours ago, Pozzible said:

Lived and worked in Plano for over 20 years. We had our yearly convocation there, so I’ve been in the (impressive) facility for many, many hours. Was never there for a church service, but it always seemed mega creepy. 

I was never in either facility, they moved to their current stadium style facility while I lived there. The exterior of the facility they moved from looked like a prison on the outside.

Edited yesterday at 06:36 PM by NWUSHorny

[Pozzible]

20 hours ago, 757pozzybear said:

America has operated on political violence since 1776, though. So I dunno how anyone in power in good faith can condemn political violence, given how the US operates from deposing leadership of countries in South America to the violence undertaken against migrants.

Undeniable. But many of us want to do better. 

[rawfuckingonly]

On 9/17/2025 at 5:43 PM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Only once it was proven that the bullet fired wasn't from a member of the left.

@TaKinGDeePanal

I'll ask you for the second time now:

When was it proven!? How was it proven and by who?

ANSWER THE QUESTION AND BE SPECIFIC.

You made a claim so you best back it up. LET'S HEAR IT....

 

Edited 16 hours ago by rawfuckingonly

[SomewhereonNeptune]

10 hours ago, rawfuckingonly said:

@TaKinGDeePanal

I'll ask you for the second time now:

When was it proven!? How was it proven and by who?

ANSWER THE QUESTION AND BE SPECIFIC.

You made a claim so you best back it up. LET'S HEAR IT....

 

I noticed that Viking8x6 downvoted this one. I've mentioned in the past, we've discussed how where statements without substantiation have been, shall we say, 'discouraged'. Now it seems like the shoe is on the other foot and is somehow objectionable. I think the question is a fair one, and wondering if Viking's is 'moderation' or personal and just doesn't happen to like the inference?

My point: Everyone has a right to dislike something, and to challenge the assertions by asking for the facts. Heck, I've felt a bit like I had to substantiate my own more conservative points, and we don't need to go back to see that. But if we're setting a standard for one, we should be fair and set it for all. Saying so might not be popular but it's the right thing.

For instance, for all the people who are saying that Kirk is a deplorable individual, I'd sure like to see proof of that and not simply quotes pulled out of an incorrect context.

So do we accept the pablum of one faction without question but make the other jump through flaming hoops, or do we approach both skeptically but fairly?

[viking8x6]

I'll be happy to explain myself, @SomewhereonNeptune.

1. The question had already been asked once. @TaKinGDeePanal is not obliged to respond, and shouting (all caps) a demand for an answer is simply rude.

2. @rawfuckingonly says "You made a claim so you best back it up." But if you go back and read the post from @TaKinGDeePanal, his actual claim is about your (@SomewhereonNeptune) assertion regarding the example set by moderates and conservatives. The only role the clause about the bullet plays in his post is as a time reference dividing a "This Is War" behavior from one of  "prayer, vigil, and remembrance". Whether the source of the bullet was proven or merely perceived to be from one source or another is not cogent to his statement.

 

[PozTalkAuthor]

I've always been against violence and murder; if you kill a person for their ideas, you just make these ideas stronger.

I had never heard who this Kirk was, before his death. Maybe here in EU he wasn't so famous. Btw, the result is that now the world knows him and searches for his discussions. 

What's more serious then? President asking for murderer's death sentence. To condemn death, you respond with death? Is it a way to do politics? I hoped humanity would have evolved, but I might be wrong. 

 

As LGBT community we must be aware of this: Kirk's murder will increase and accelerate Trump's plans to block LGBT advocacy.

 

Robinson was not a LGBT advocate or so; media all over the world, talk about a trans partner, pro-trans slogans, etc, because they are avoiding the elephant in the room. As usual. 

 

The fact that younger people are becoming more and more extremists. And let me say, social network algorithms are contributing to polarize the debate. The one who's right, is who screams louder. This wouldn't be a civil world! 

 

And as for the "antifascist" issue, I think we should look ourselves at the mirror and ask if we really are anti-fascist. Because fascism is no longer a movement, it's a method!

Do you belong to far-right, or radical-left, if you indulge violence towards your opponent, you're an anti-fascist using fascist methods. 

 

Then? Kirk? His ideas? I do not share a word with him, it is a dangerous rethoric for society. But murder is not a solution. 

What makes Kirk's ideas so popular? Maybe the fact he has a BETTER way to communicate, a good charisma, whatever? A good idea, but with a questionable communication method, nowadays becomes ineffective. The system is toxic, like it or not.

Let me say, it's like mosquitos. You can spread poison through the entire house, but if you do not take care of the pot outside, with water where mosquitos deposit their eggs, it's like the crocodile chasing its tail.

My 1,5 cents. 

[757pozzybear]

Honestly though, the state consolidation around media has its roots in media consolidation and deregulation being pushed in the 1990s, and doesn't have much to do with Charlie Kirk in actuality. Charlie Kirk was just a symptom of the resulting well poisoning from media deregulation.

Edited 1 hour ago by 757pozzybear